Jack Thompson threatening wikipedia

IanC 03-11-2006 10:05 AM
And i quote his letter that a user posted on the talk page for the article on Jack Thomspon:
Dear Board Members of Wikipedia Foundation:
I contacted the Foundation at [removed], asking for your fax number, and the person who answered the phone refused to give it to me because I indicated this pertained to a legal matter. This arrogance helps explain some of your problems.
You have at your www.wikipedia.org a number of false, defamatory, and actionable statements about me. As an aside, you all don't even have my date and year of birth correct, and it goes downhill from there.
I am hereby demanding that you give me the real names, addresses, and phone numbers, and any other verifying information, regarding anyone who has posted anything about me at Wikipedia, as they will be defendants. You have thirty days to comply with this demand. The Seigenthaler experience shows that you must provide me this information.

All of the info on there was well researched, and he just didnt like that it showed him for what he is.

Also said was:
Jack Thompson also mentioned that he tried to correct the false statements and foolish Wikipedians then removed the fixes and called it vandalism.

Well i wouldnt call inserting a section bitching about wikipedia and how false the article was as correcting the info, would you?

I hope Wikipedia dont fold to this guy, theres no reason to just because he doesnt like the truth.

Randolph 03-11-2006 10:17 AM
The man is an ass. I'm not even going to dignify him by discussing his asinine actions. That is all.
Generalissimo D 03-11-2006 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Randolph
The man is an ass.
Travis Bickle 03-11-2006 10:22 AM
Oh hell no. You can take away useless sex in GTA. You can threaten to get Penny Arcade arrested. But nobody f***s with my precious Wikipedia.
paul1290 03-11-2006 10:34 AM
Just ignore him and let him thrash all he wants.

Here's what I think:
If wikipedia gives in, than wikipedia is no longer trustworthy. If a politician supports him, that politician is longer credible. Don't bash Jack Thompson directly because that only makes him stronger. Just make it so nobody would want to support him or give in to his demands. After that, he will be a nobody.
Jstar136 03-11-2006 10:45 AM
Don't hate him, just pay no attention to him.

He's like an immature child screaming for someone to look at him.

On second thought, continue to hate him, but don't tell anyone. Wink
David Ryder 03-11-2006 01:01 PM
yeah it's best not to pay attention to him, he's just trying to get noticed again.
Sharpshooter005 03-11-2006 01:15 PM
He's been blocked from practicing law in a state, and now other media watchdog groups are distancing themselves from him.

Why should anyone be paying attention to this man again?
kaura117 03-11-2006 06:01 PM
IanC... why?! I've gone a good, happy two months without hearing a single peep from that senile old moron. Why must you ruin my day by dredging up the name "Jack Thompson?!" ;_; What have I ever done to you?!
Generalissimo D 03-11-2006 06:29 PM
You know that parasite would have popped up sooner or later.

In lighter news, the Modest Proposal was once again contested.

evanASF27 03-11-2006 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Originally posted by Randolph
The man is an ass.

Patsai 03-12-2006 07:45 PM
Wait, if this guy is a very busy lawyer, then why does he take his time to look on the internet for anything that he might find "offensive"?

It's not about being busy, but why you are busy. The bees are praised, the misquito is swatted.
Ace of Spades 03-12-2006 08:02 PM
Just when we thought this man could get any more insane. Honesty, Jack needs to lay off the Stupid Juice.
Jstar136 03-12-2006 11:03 PM

Off the Stupid Juice and on the Jesus Juice. Wink
Sharpshooter005 03-12-2006 11:19 PM
then why does he take his time to look on the internet for anything that he might find "offensive"?

It's his job, basically.

He went from medical malpractice (the sort of law the monicker "ambulance chaser" is applied to usually) to this.

The guys just desperate for PR. And every one of these little skirmishes he gets into with penny arcade, wikipedia, etc gives it to him.

He's of no real consequence, I wish people would stop acting like he is.

This article, without even counting the sub-pages, is significantly longer than Wikipedia's biographies of George Washington and Napoleon I of France, and practically the same length as those of Joseph Stalin and George W. Bush, just to pick some reasonably notable people more-or-less at random. Jack Thompson, by contrast, even if he is widely quoted, seems to be a relatively peripheral cultural figure. Why is this guy so important that we need a book-length narrative about him? --Russ Blau (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

...Alright if thats true, its ABSOLUTELY idiotic.

You cannot tell me people will even remember this guy in five years, let alone a hundred.

If an internet celebrity is generating a greater amount of biographical interest than major historical figures, then it's frankly somewhat depressing.

edit: And as far as the Siegenthaler thing goes..it was settled out of court.

The user who posted it was found out not through legal action against wikipedia, but a private individual finding his ip address, using it to find the company he worked for, and leaking it to the press. At which point the man stepped forward, accepted responsibility, resigned, and Siegenthaler let it go.

So wheres the precedent, I'm not seeing it.

If Thompson got the ip address of whomever posted the material he deemed inaccurate or libelous, and tried to go to court...then maybe. But as it stands there dosen't appear to be a precedent.
kaura117 03-12-2006 11:39 PM
It's just standard human behavior. We prefer to rant and rave about things we feel more strongly about, and Thompson is a more immediate threat to your standard Wikian than Bush or Washington is.

Plus, the man gives more than his share of materials to work with. >_>
Sharpshooter005 03-13-2006 12:01 AM
Thompson is a more immediate threat to your standard Wikian

...How? From what I've read of the Siegenthaler affair, it almost seems as if the precedent would be in FAVOR of wikipedia.

Also..they sort of HAD to lock the article down, since now when it opens it's going to be nothing but a flamewar between Thompson and his more vocal detractors.

So...expect alot of spelling errors, basically.

Heres an editorial on the Siegenthaler thing, by someone who actually is a lawyer, which basically supports backs my assertation up

The Federal Statute That Very Probably Confers Immunity on Wikipedia

Wikipedia's immunity from suit comes from Section 230 of a federal statute known as the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), passed in 1996. (The Supreme Court struck down part of the Act, but left this provision - which was not then challenged -- intact.)

Section 230's goal is to make ISPs and immune when defamatory material is found on the web sites they host. But it isn't limited to ISPs alone; it also applies to any "provider or user of an interactive computer service," which would include message boards and chat rooms and other places where third parties can post content.

"Interactive computer service" is defined as "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational systems."

According to Section 230, no such person or entity "shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This is significant, because liability for defamation focuses on publishers; and liability for slander focuses on speakers.

Who counts as a "provider or user of an interactive computer service"? Significantly, online newspapers such as the New York Times don't count. Their service is not "interactive," since only content their editors directly approve can appear on their site. And arguably, they don't provide a "computer service," but rather a journalistic one, anyway.

But ISPs like AOL do count - as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit made plain in its decision in Zeran v. American Online. The effect of Zeran is to confer on providers and users of interactive computer services complete immunity from liability for transmitting the defamation of a third party.

And Wikipedia very probably counts too. It is "interactive"; as noted above, not only can users author, but also alter, its content. And it arguably is a "computer service" - not, say, a journalism service, as that term is currently understood.
IanC 03-13-2006 07:16 AM
He has now threatened games site www.gamepolitics.com (which he has an unhealthy obsession with) saying "You're next, Mr. McCauley"
Next for what i dont know.
Sharpshooter005 03-13-2006 11:46 AM
Next for what i dont know.

Probably the apparently non-existant "precedent"
Jonny Axehandle 03-13-2006 08:10 PM

^Make this the next big meme.